Indifference,understanding observation( JK)

A mind that is indifferent, is aware of the shoddiness of our civilization, the shoddiness of our thought, the ugly relationships; it is aware of the street, of the beauty of a tree, or of a lovely face, a smile; and it neither denies it nor accepts it, but merely observes - not intellectually, not coldly, but with that warm affectionate indifference. Observation is not detachment, because there is no attachment. It is only when the mind is attached - to your house, to the family, to some job - , that you talk about detachment. But, you know, when you are indifferent, there is a sweetness to it, there is a perfume to it, there is a quality of tremendous energy - this may not be the meaning of that word in the dictionary. One has to be indifferent - to health, to loneliness, to what people say or do not say; indifferent whether you succeed or do not succeed; indifferent to authority. Now, if you observe, you hear somebody is shooting, making a lot of noise with a gun. You can very easily get used to it; probably you have already got used to it, and you turn a deaf ear - that is not indifference. Indifference comes into being when you listen to that noise with no resistance, go with that noise, ride on that noise infinitely. Then that noise does not affect you, does not pervert you, does not make you indifferent. Then you listen to every noise in the world - the noise of your children, of your wife, of the birds, the noise of the chatter the politicians make - , you listen to it completely with indifference and therefore with understanding.

J. Krishnamurti Bombay 6th Public Talk 7th March 1962

(link) overcoming epistemology by Charles Taylor Essay

I was reading ' citings' in Economic Times which is just a daily 2 paragraph thing that takes less than 5 minutes to read but gave me a wealth of knowledge. Introduced me to the likes of Miyalyi Chisckzent Mihalyi and " Flow " concept etc.

I came across an excerpt from Canadian Philosopher Charles Taylor and his take on ' epistemology'. Only 2 paras.
Full text of his essay is given in his link.

Read it after your ISTD exams.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/taylor.htm

from one of your fav sites !!!

http://www.marxists.org

There is also a ' minuature library of philosophy' in the same site.
For extremely leisurely reading !!

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/index.htm

(soul journey) Tension,Balance & Bonding

We live in a world of opposites that we often experience as conflict. But fortunately everything eventually balances with its opposite - absolutely everything! The nature of duality implies an underlying unity. So whenever one side of duality is isolated, expressed or identified, the opposite is always a potential and immediately sought. One side of any duality cannot exist by itself, except through repression of its opposite. Or said another way, one side does not exist by itself and cannot be isolated except in a hypothetical sense. What holds a duality together to create a unity is tension.


Tension is the bond of opposites. It is because of tension that growth takes place and evolution is possible. There are always forces operating against each other, and it is this which makes life interesting, exciting, challenging, frustrating and fulfilling. All healthy and growing relationships embody this tension. Two people who are very similar might have a pleasant relationship but they are unlikely to be catalysts for each other's growth.

When a person does something contrary to one's nature or inherent goodness, there is an impulse to balance it with something natural and good. This is conscience, we say. But conscience is the voice of balance within the psyche. So, too, when a person does or expresses something in a positive or good way, there is an impulse toward the negative or dark side. Many people, because of their superficiality or ignorance, act on this impulse, manifesting it outwardly through negative behaviour. The result of the negative behaviour, which was considered acceptable because of rationalization when done, often leads to guilt or some self-recrimination, which then might lead to some positive choice or another negative act, depending on the consciousness of the individual. The negative impulse, following positive expressions, has the purpose of making us aware of some inner negative within our subconscious that is wanting to surface in order to be resolved. Through this kind of awareness, there grows the ability to express increasingly the light, love and power that naturally exists within each of us. Through awareness we become empowered and we eventually realize that we have choice in every situation, that we can choose to respond or to react.

It is interesting to observe the principle that all energy follows the path of least resistance. Another principle of life is that tension always seeks resolution. Putting the two principles together we can say that tension always seeks resolution through the path of least resistance. Examples of this might be that ignorance seeks awareness through the experience of not knowing what is needed or desired in any given situation; fear seeks courage through the experience of feeling inadequate; fear seeks love through the experience of being separate or isolated.


Whenever we want to create something, make some changes or expand consciousness in some way, we need to create the appropriate tension that will bring the results (resolution) that we are looking for. The question we ask must be the right question related to our goal or direction. This means we must choose our words carefully.

The greatest tension for expanding consciousness and 'creating soul' is the tension of opposites between personality and soul, such as the simultaneous presence of fear (personality) and courage (soul). The fear prompts one to fight or flight, while the courage prompts one to stand up to what needs to be faced. These opposite urges naturally and strongly seek resolution so action can take place. Tension would cease if either of the opposites was repressed or avoided. Both must remain equally present in order for a transformation to occur.

A similar tension that is experienced quite often is the basic fear-love opposition. The soul's nature is love which constantly seeks union, cooperation, and support with the other. The personality's tendency, rooted in a sense of separateness and fear, seeks security, individuality, control and independence. While the personality dominates there is no tension. When the personality is passive or not active and soul seeks to inspire or express, there is also no tension. There needs to be active participation on both parts, soul and personality, to create tension.

When there is wounding, crisis or even inspiration, the soul often becomes active and creates a tension with the personality. This tension seeks resolution, which is not a suppression of either side of the tension, but a union of the two to create something greater. This results in a deeply authentic expression of one's true nature.

If we want to keep a creative process moving along, we need to ask the questions and be open to the answers that do not stop the process. Every resolution must give rise to a new tension to keep a process moving. If you ask: "How should I do this?" and you answer: "I don't know," you have a resolution that does not create further tension. The process then stops. One answer that would create further tension might be, "I could be more open to ..." You do not have to give a final or definitive answer to questions, but an answer that is honest or plausible, but which can give rise to another question.

This same process must be applied when seeking to become more authentic. Ask questions related to authenticity, and give answers that create new tensions to keep the process going further and further into the centre of one's being - to the transpersonal levels of life.

The most basic question to ask often regarding one's authentic nature is: who am I? Obviously there is no definitive answer. But whenever we ask ourselves this question we must give ourselves an answer which can be questioned further. For every answer ask another question that takes you deeper into understanding and connection with your true self.

Action Exercises:
----------------------------
1. Identify some negative trait or tendency within your personality; then identify the soul quality (a positive opposite) that would create a tension within you. Practice being with both simultaneously.

2. Write a series of questions with responses that keep the tension going.

philosophynow:Dear Soc, on religion & ethics

Dear Socrates,
Time and again you return to the question of religion, about which you have expressed very definite opinions. Why this bee in your bonnet? It seems to have become your hobbyhorse of late.
Yours truly,Just Curious

Dear Curious,
Not just of late: it was my preoccupation in ancient time as well. But you are right. The former gadfly of the steed of Athens now has his own mount and stinger. And I think I can answer your question about why directly (although I hesitate to utter it because it will not sound humble): looking back over the millennia I have come to realize that on that day in the agora when I asked Euthyphro, priest of the Olympian gods, “Do you really believe those stories about the gods are true?” and he said, “Yes,” philosophy was born. There you have it – what distinguishes philosophy from religion. Philosophy questions what religion merely asserts and assumes.

Furthermore, I agree with my distinguished predecessor, Siddhartha Gautama, that the metaphysical claims of the various religions can be safety put aside. Let the sciences handle them. Such issues do not tend toward the kind of edification I seek, which is guidance in living. This was clear to me even in ancient times, as Plato reported in the Phaedo. Thus, I see the pith of religion to be ethics. But ethics can be, and I maintain should be, an object of inquiry, not a subject of dogma. Therefore, again I advocate philosophy.

Nonetheless I have also argued in these columns that there is a legitimate place in human life for something that can rightly be called religion, although it would still be philosophically imbued. In fact I think true religion might be defined as lived philosophy. I allow that this could be conceived as something separate from philosophy per se as it does – alas! – seem to be possible to reason well about ethical questions even if the reasoner fails, or does not even try, to live up to his or her own conclusions. I am not absolutely certain that this does not reduce to an earlier distinction of mine between philosophy and sophistry, but I am willing to grant that it does not and instead represents a higher dichotomy between a seeker after truth and a master of life (or one who honestly, humbly, yet confidently strives to be so to the best of his or her ability).

I would number among the latter such luminaries as Siddhartha, Jesus and Gandhi. None of these was God or a god, that is, no more than any of the rest of us are. Indeed, an essential component of my admiration for them is precisely that they were not gods, since to the degree that they were and I am not, what interest could they have for me? How could they be models of how I should live? What attracts me to them is their eloquence, their calm, perhaps their good humor, their compassion, their courage, and their total liberality of thinking.

It is completely clear to me that if there is a God, His behavior is nothing I would be able to emulate, nor would I even care to. What credit should go to such an all-powerful, all-seeing, and perfectly pure of heart? Is it not we, who must struggle to achieve anything at all, for whom praise or condemnation is both necessary and apt? And what instruction would come to me from contemplating how God behaves? A Being who wipes out villages with volcanic eruptions, plagues and inundations, and stands idly by while humans torture children and animals, is too inscrutable, if not outright cruel or indifferent, for me to find any guidance therein. (I’m with Ivan Karamazov on that one!) If I had total knowledge of what my actions, actual or contemplated, would lead to, and also had the power to do anything I wished, then if my heart were pure I presumably would know exactly what I ought to do and then do it, being guided solely by the best welfare of all. But since I am sunk in a vat of ignorance, with mixed motives to boot, any pretence to such a condition could only end in disaster except by sheer dumb luck… or by the further circumstance that, thank God, I also lack the power to accomplish whatever I wish!

So to me as a philosopher is left the humble task of constantly questioning my surmises about what is true and what is good and what it is right or wrong to do. And when I contemplate real flesh-and-blood human beings, such as the aforementioned three, I can only marvel at their ability to affirm and act in the face of rational doubt, and to do so in a way that appeals to my own deepest ethical intuitions.

Let me also acknowledge that there could be a ‘mystical’ element to their wisdom, which may in fact be what sets them apart from ‘mere’ philosophers. All three seem to have been meditators and in touch with something that gave them their vision, strength, and charisma. If you would like to call that something ‘God’, I have no great objection. Is being in touch with it a necessary condition of what I have been calling religion (that is, genuine religion)? I’m not sure. Sometimes I think that meditation is simply a quieting of the mind to enable reasoning to take place in an ideal way. But if one prefers the idea of a clearing-out of mental, selfish clutter to make room for divine power to pour in, I see no harm... provided one does not hold the process sacrosanct – that is, above and beyond the reach of philosophy and all its questioning. Absolutely not, I can affirm without doubt! With regard to that point I think I can also rely on explicit endorsements from at least two of the three exemplars; and if I were enough of an exegete, perhaps I could make the case for the third as well.

As ever,
Socrates